W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2004

[w3photo] image and image region vocabulary (proposal)

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:54:10 +0100
To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, Masahide Kanzaki <post@kanzaki.com>
Cc: semantic-photolist@unitboy.com
Message-ID: <PM-EH.20040210175410.74219.2.1D@192.168.27.2>



On 10.02.2004 11:32:30, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
>Hi Libby and all,
>
>Thanks Libby for updating examples. W3c namespace seems fine.
>
>I noticed, by looking at Libby's example, that 'width' and 'height' are not
>part of the proposed vocabulary. Why not adding them to the vocab ? I think
>we have a lot of use cases for these properties, and find no reason to
>leave them alone in Jim's namespace.


On 09.02.2004 23:21:17, Libby Miller wrote:
>
>I've upated http://esw.w3.org/topic/W3PhotoVocabs and the examples in
>http://sw1.ilrt.org/discovery/2004/01/w3photo-examples/ using a pretend
>url for the new vocab: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/image#.
>
>I can change again depending on what we decide. The parts of image
>annotation vocab has a broader application than the w3photo project, so
>I think it would make sense to have it on the w3c site (which has a good
>persistence policy) much like the icalendar[1] and geo[2] vocabs.
>However Dan is travelling right now, so I don't know when he'll be able
>to put something up there.

I've adjusted my stuff and replaced the image regions namespace uri [1]
with [2]. If we really get an "official" w3.org namespace, I'd agree with
Masahide that this should include width and height as well (though the
semantics are different from Jim's terms, that can be both used for images
and regions). And it should have connections to foaf:Image. I'm not sure 
about depicts and depiction though: deployment-friendly re-using from foaf
vs. re-defining+mapping and having a complete image vocabulary.

For easier discussion, I put a proposal for [2] online. It follows the
latter approach and redefines the terms from the foaf vocab but redundant
terms can easily be removed:

RDFS+OWL version: summary (HTML)
      http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/pages/image_spec_rdfsowl
RDFS+OWL version: Documentation (HTML)
      http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/pages/image_doc_rdfsowl
RDFS+OWL version: serialization (RDF/XML):
      http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/specs/ontology8

OWL DL version: summary (HTML)
      http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/pages/image_spec_dl
OWL DL version: serialization (RDF/XML):
      http://www.bnowack.de/w3photo/specs/ontology7


what do you think?

benjamin

[1] http://www.wasab.dk/morten/2004/01/image-regions-schema.rdf#
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/image#

--
Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 82-100
45145 Essen, Germany

=================
This is the TEMPORARY discussion list for the W3 Semantic-Photo History
Project. For questions, contact greg@fotonotes.net.

Subscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: subscribe

Unsubscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: unsubscribe

Help
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: help
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 11:56:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:39 GMT